post processing

what to do?

just a quick question.

i dont do any post processing of any photos i take - this is because i'm still learning how to actually use my camera - so i prefer to spend more time taking pictures. also because i dont have any photoshop stuff.

however, i was just thinking - is there any thoughts on saying that an image is an image - and the photorapher should use their skills to take a good photo in the first place rather than rely on computer tricks afterwards??????

or is this just me being lazy in terms of not wanting to bother post processing????????

does any kind of photo snobbery exist in this area???? is there any kind of 'limit' to what can be done on a computer before it detracts from the original photo???? when i say 'detracts' - i know the picture will probably look better - but what i mean is - if the picture looks better for computer tricks - does that not mean that the right picture wasn't taken in the first place?????

i'm only asking this because i read another thread on this website where someone said they used some kind of computer thing to straighten the horizon - i've got some photos that i really really like except that the horizon is slightly off line.

by the way - i'm talknig about arty type photos like those beautiful photos that Kgiller took in Cork. S/he stated that very little work was done to the photos afterwards.

Obviously wedding photos etc - anything that can be done to perfect a photo that will be someones live long memory is a different story - but thats photo for money stuff.

challengemaster

Post processing is a digitial version of what went on in darkrooms.

As film has evolved to digital media, so have processing techniques. There's no difference really.

Personally, imo, you should post process a photo so you're completly happy with how it looks. If you want it a certain way/looking like x/y/z, do it. In the end, its your photo, and its how you wanted to capture something.

unless ofc its for money, then do it however tf they want it!

what to do?

thanks challengemaster. thats interesting. i'm still going to concentrate on getting nice photos in the first place - i've a LOT of work still to do - but once i get to that point maybe i'll not feel like such a fraud by altering photos after i've taken them.

go raimh maith agat.

challengemaster

Well, I think what you should aim for is a finished product in your mind. You should just visualise something, think 'ok I can capture it such a way, and if needed adjust something later'. Maybe to get a certain effect, or some such.

We here on the photography forum will help you as much as possible to improve So don't be shy in posting your pics up.

And as I'm completly crap at Irish, I'll stick with english.

You're very welcome

what to do?

thanks challengemaster.

i'm very much aware that most of my posts are about camera gear as opposed to actual photos

i hope to address that in the near future.

its interesting now that i'm actually able to C&C my own photos......

kgiller

what to do? wrote: »

just a quick question.

i dont do any post processing of any photos i take - this is because i'm still learning how to actually use my camera - so i prefer to spend more time taking pictures. also because i dont have any photoshop stuff.

however, i was just thinking - is there any thoughts on saying that an image is an image - and the photorapher should use their skills to take a good photo in the first place rather than rely on computer tricks afterwards??????

or is this just me being lazy in terms of not wanting to bother post processing????????

does any kind of photo snobbery exist in this area???? is there any kind of 'limit' to what can be done on a computer before it detracts from the original photo???? when i say 'detracts' - i know the picture will probably look better - but what i mean is - if the picture looks better for computer tricks - does that not mean that the right picture wasn't taken in the first place?????

i'm only asking this because i read another thread on this website where someone said they used some kind of computer thing to straighten the horizon - i've got some photos that i really really like except that the horizon is slightly off line.

by the way - i'm talknig about arty type photos like those beautiful photos that Kgiller took in Cork. S/he stated that very little work was done to the photos afterwards.

Obviously wedding photos etc - anything that can be done to perfect a photo that will be someones live long memory is a different story - but thats photo for money stuff.

Thanks for the kind words about my photos . And im a he, by the way :P.

I havnt been on the photography scene for long, only a month or so, but imo you do what you feel is right. If you think that your image looks good, without being altered by post processing, and you also get an extra sense of achievement for doing this, then stick with it. I think it is always much nicer when u look back over your photos and see an image that looks perfect in your eyes, and doesnt need any changes (like some of my shots of the sunset u mentioned, where i literally did hardly anything to the images).

On the otherhand, if your goal is to capture images that look great, of something that you find appealing, but you just didnt manage to get it the way you wanted it, you can alter it easily with PP, and the result is an image that you are happy with and enjoy.

At the end of the day i think that the joy of photography is your own self satisfaction (and maybe some praise and nice comments from peers :P).

what to do?

yeah, have been looking on this website for a few weeks recently.

Kgiller - those photos you took are great - i love the reflection of the light on the water - this is coming from a complete pleb by the way.

the other photo i loved - and the only photo i've seen on this site that has stuck with me - is a photo of a skanger car or two and an off-licence sign juxtaxposed against something like sean o'casey.

elven

Do a quick search on here for 'manipulation', 'photoshop' and 'cheating' and you'll have some reading material to keep you going a couple hours

Sometimes your desired finished article simply can't be achieved straight out of camera. Sometimes the processing is part of what makes the image 'yours'. It's hugely personal. Just keep taking pictures and see how you feel as time goes on, experiment with different things - it's like trying to perfect a recipe...

Fajitas!

elven wrote: »

it's like trying to perfect a recipe...

And then you start using Lightroom


/runs for cover

elven

I want to deny it.

I can't.

I'm out of the lightroom closet... dammit.

Fajitas!

elven wrote: »

I want to deny it.

I can't.

I'm out of the lightroom closet... dammit.

That took a while. Now go to bed or you'll be cranky tomorrow.

OP, processing is down to taste and preference, but to get to having your own taste and preference you gotta go through all the motions first, playing around with different types of processing you like, seeing what works, what dosn't, and how it works, and building on that. Easiest way is reading basic online tutorials and magazines on contrast and the like.

It's a common misconception that a photograph is taken at that exact moment, and that's it, I'd say that's the case for about 1% of imagery - All the rest will have had some modification, whether it be the film used, chems used, paper used, to the other end of the scale where it's photo manipulation programs.

If you've a photo that has an off horizon, fix it! Do you really think every other photographer gets it right at the time? I certainally don't!!!!!

But seriously, check some tutorials, give it a blast, if you don't like it, fair enough, if you do, all the better, you'd never know what way it's going to bring your photos

TYR ->

All of my pictures always goes through photoshop. I use alot of textures in my pictures. Photo editing is a big no no for someone, but i belive that its the end result that matters the most. The atmosphere you can create by using photoshop.

CabanSail

It's all about decisions & who makes them. This has not changed with the advent of digital. What has changed is that the amateur photogrpaher now has a lot more options available that were not there in the past.

(Long long ago in a Galaxy far far away .... ) I used to shoot mainly 35mm Transprancies. A lot of the decisions then were made for me by Kodak, Agfa, Fuji etc. as to the charactaristics that they had in their film. My choice then was to pick to pick the film that would suit the shots best or, normally, go with what was already loaded in the camera. The option of any manipulation after the slides came back was limited to maybe a bit of cropping. More could be done if the slide was then printed, but the process was expensive & beyond my budget to do at home, so someone else in a lab somewhere would make the decisions for me.

If you were using Colour Print Film then the decisions were ussually made by one of those mass processing machines. If you wanted a larger print you could request certain things be done but it was expensive. Black & White gave more options as it was affordable to have a home Darkroom. There were more options available in the process to the amateur photographer. You could pick the level of contrast by selecting different papers (once again some of the decisoons were being made by Ilford or Kodak) how to crop, dodging & burning etc.

Today we, as amateurs, have available tools to us that many professional photographers would only dream about 20 years ago. If you want to accept the output of your camera then that is fine. What you are doing is letting the software make some of the decisons for you. That is exactly what most Point & Shoot (the majority of people that use cameras) photographers do. If you want to be creative with your photography then you will probably want to start taking more of the decisons yourself. Sometimes that decision will be to leave things alone & other times to drastically alter things. It is still best to try to get things as close as you can inside the camera when you can, but also to give yourself as much flexibility to change things afterwards. This is also why most serious photographers will shoot RAW as it gives more options later.

Sorry if this has been a bit of a ramble.

smelltheglove

I'm going to jump in here and offer my little bit - processing can be time consuming and what you are doing in my opinion is the right thing, start by trying to perfect your image capturing skills first. The better the quality of the image the less work that has to go into it.

I love processing, it's been my thing for years before photography, it's what got me interested in photography because I saw how well I could make an average picture look. The thing is now I want an excellent picture that sometimes mean a twitch of brightness / contrast / sharpness.

If you take an average picture you might need to spend 10mns working on it, take 6 of these that 1 hour - or if you take excellent pictures you might need 0 time or 1min, 60 photos of excellent quality equals the same processing time as 6 standard - see where I'm going.

Is there really anyone here that can honestly say they don't process their images at all? Everyone has to crop at some stage - that's processing imho.

what to do?

thanks for all the tips.

must get myself some processing software and mess around with it for a bit.